1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2020 b. Date Received: 16 January 2020 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he had an issue with his spouse, due to his mental condition with service- connected PTSD. The applicant states that along with another mental condition that he was being treated for in the military, caused him to be unable to handle the situation with his spouse. During his military career, he had a perfect record over a 10-year career in the military with no performance issues at any time. The applicant further details his contentions in an allied self- authored statement provided with the application. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, MDD, Medically Induced (Substances) Manic Episode with Psychosis, and Other Specified Personality Disorder. Post-service, there is no documentation indicating PTSD. The applicant is not service connected. VA records are void of contact. The applicant submitted character letters noting PTSD; however medical records in support of this is absent. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2 and 4-24 / BNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 May 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a, b and c due to his substance abuse, substandard performance of duty, acts of personal misconduct or professional dereliction, and derogatory information filed in his Army Human Resources Record. The specific reasons for the elimination action: Substantiated derogatory information, General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 9 April 2018, which was filed in his AMHRR. Acts of personal misconduct to include drug and alcohol, fleeing and eluding police officers, driving under the influence of alcohol, and two violations of a civilian protective order. Substandard performance of duty as demonstrated by an apathetic attitude and unwillingness to expend effort; failure to conform to prescribed military standards; failure to properly perform assignments; and failure to exercise necessary leadership. Conduct unbecoming and officer as indicated by the above referenced items. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 3 August 2018, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) DASA (RB) Decision Date / Characterization: 10 January 2019 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 17 May 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 22 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 35D 5S 2B, All Source Intelligence Officer / 9 years, 8 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: CDT, 13 September 2006 - 16 May 2009 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (12 September 2010 - 28 May 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM, AAM-2, PUC, VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS, ASR, OSR, MOCSM, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 19 February 2010 - 18 September 2011 / Best Qualified 19 September 2011 - 7 February 2012 / Best Qualified 8 February 2012 - 30 November 2012 / Best Qualified 1 December 2012 - 12 June 2014 / Highly Qualified 13 June 2014 - 27 July 2015 / Highly Qualified 28 July 2015 - 3 April 2016 / Highly Qualified 4 April 2016 - 3 April 2017 / Highly Qualified 4 April 2017 - 24 May 2018 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation - Final, dated 3 September 2013, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Amphetamines when he provided a urine sample during a unit urinalysis, which contained amphetamines. St. Petersburg Police Department Incident/ Investigation Report, dated 9 December 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with: Simple Battery (Domestic Related); Driving Under The Influence; Fleeing and Eluding. St. Petersburg Police Department Incident/ Investigation Report, dated 15 December 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with: Violate Injunction Domestic Violence. St. Petersburg Police Department Incident/ Investigation Report, dated 28 December 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with: Violate Injunction Domestic Violence. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 30 January 2018, for fleeing and eluding police officers, driving under the influence of alcohol, and violating a civilian protective order. On 10 December 2017, at approximately 0000 hours, he failed to stop for a marked St. Petersburg, Florida police cruiser. When stopped by the police, the displayed clear signs of impairment, including slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol and blood shot eyes. The applicant also failed numerous field sobriety tests and submitted to two breath alcohol tests that indicated levels of impairment. The applicant was arrested for this misconduct and subsequently failed to disclose this incident to his Professor of Military Science. On 11 December 2017, the Pinellas County Court imposed a protective order against him for alleged domestic abuse against his wife. The applicant failed to adhere to this order when he contacted his wife on 15 December 2017 to discuss the protective order and issues concerning his pending divorce. The conduct directed violated the court order, which was unacceptable. State of Florida Judgment, dated 19 June 2018, reflects the applicant appeared before a court and entered a plea of guilty to the following crimes; Obstructing or Resisting Officer without Violence; and, Reckless Driving. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 May 2018, reflects the applicant was evaluated on a command directed basis. cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Other problems related to legal circumstances. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; 22 letters of support; lab report; résumé. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." "Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability forPTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record reflects that on 2 May 2018, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200006951 3